THE FUTURE OF BLACKJACK
Anyway, I was at Saratoga prior to grand opening last year. The party pit was being replaced by a big pod of etables, igames, whatever they are called by SHFL ( I know Roger, but this was prior to Bally merger ). Sign posts were up but not the signs. So I wanted to see what had happened in the meantime. Well, the pod was gone and nothing but slots on that level now.
Walked up to first floor and saw 7 real blackjack tables. All were single deck, $10 minimum. First felt I looked at said BJ paid 3/2. WOW.
But then the other six all said 6/5. So much for the future of Blackjack.
They was a big poster next to the pit that had rules for BJ, Roulette, and Craps. Standard Bullshit except for this note about BJ only.
Maximum tip bet for BJ is $25 per hand. WTF ????? Anybody ever seen this rule EVER !!!!
I have been to at least one place that set it up so that the aggregate cannot exceed 110% of max. In this case, with a $1000 max, the player's bet and dealer's bet combined cannot exceed $1100.
With this method, assuming a $10 minimum, a person could bet $10 for the player and $1090 for the dealer. (The player was still restricted to max of $1000, though.)
This is the same advantage you can get at places that allow back-betting but don't force you to follow along on splits. Why, yes, thank you, I will turn my 88vT into a single 8vT at no additional charge!
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceNote that if the house allows you to split your hand by matching your bet but not the tip, the tip bet can be +EV.
You mean there are houses that don't allow it? Seems like any and all toke action is optional usually. I can see a dealer now. "No, if you split, you have to play another dollar for me."
Quote: DeucekiesYou mean there are houses that don't allow it? Seems like any and all toke action is optional usually. I can see a dealer now. "No, if you split, you have to play another dollar for me."
Right but it makes sense for them to cap it in this case. Obviously the house does not care about the dollar but if my buddy is the dealer and I sit down and place a $10 bet for myself and a $1000 "tip" bet for the dealer, there's a problem. I'm not sure if this is why they limit it to $25, but since it's a +EV bet if played properly, it makes sense to limit it.
Quote: BuzzardI guess I am DUMb Explain to me how the $100 for the dealer is +ev ? ? ? Not just one predetermined hand , but plus EV before you receive your cards !
It's +EV because I can spit without putting out extra money. So I get free defensive splits.
Eg, suppose you have 88 vs a 10. This is a horrible situation. Stand or hit, and your ev is about -$50. Now, you can also split. When you split, each 8 v 10 is a bad situation -- you are losing badly. But 2 of those is still better than one 16 v 10, so you are better of splitting. But if you can split for free and just play one 8 v 10, you are basically throwing out an 8 (which is the worst card in the deck for you) and getting a new card for free.
The fact that you can do this in all defensive split situations adds enough to your EV that it makes the game positive. This is a relatively well-known advantage play in places that allow back-betting (I've heard that it is, or at least used to be, commonly allowed in Europe) The play is, I sit there and bet the minimum while you back-bet the maximum. I play my hand not to maximize my EV, but to maximize our combined EV (which is pretty much the same as maximizing your EV, since my bet is insignificant compared to yours). So, I will make splits that I would not normally make, that hurt my hand but help yours (you don't come along for the split). That, combined with you not coming along on basic strategy defensive splits (but coming along on offensive ones!), confers an advantage off-the-top (no counting necessary)
Quote: Buzzard' The fact that you can do this in all defensive split situations adds enough to your EV that it makes the game positive. " i VERY SERIOUSLY DOUBT THIS !
It does. It's well-known. It's written about in a lot of blackjack books. If I was at home with my blackjack library I would give you some references.
Remember that the house edge in blackjack is pretty small in most games. It does not take much to overcome it!
Quote: BuzzardYeah, and those books are usually about sd games, stand on soft 17, surrender , etc. Those books are the only places you will ever find those games.
No, not really. The edge you gain from this is significant -- it's enough to overcome any reasonable rules (and possibly even some unreasonable ones). I will send some references when I get home tonight, if someone does not beat me to it.
BTW I have not played a H17 game in years. I don't even remember the H17 basic strategy. There are good games out there! The games that I regularly play have house edges in the 0.3% - 0.4% range. One is even about 0.25%
Quote: BleedingChipsSlowlyDoes pooling the tips take the teeth out of the dealer collusion problem as far as the casinos are concerned?
This is a good point. It still makes sense for them to limit the bet sizes, though. Of course, you can give a dealer any sized tip you would like, you just can't bet it at those favorable rules.
Quote: BleedingChipsSlowlyDoes pooling the tips take the teeth out of the dealer collusion problem as far as the casinos are concerned?
Probably has more to do with pit bosses making less than some dealers and the house wanting a chumps money in their pocket and not a dealers.
Quote: BleedingChipsSlowlyDoes pooling the tips take the teeth out of the dealer collusion problem as far as the casinos are concerned?
It seems like this would only work if your colluding dealer was able to keep their own tips.
It also seems to me that this would be such an obvious collusion method that any dealer brazen enough to try it would get fired after a couple of hands. If a player is betting $10 for himself and $1000 for the dealer, especially more than once, something is clearly going on.
Quote: BuzzardProbably has more to do with pit bosses making less than some dealers and the house wanting a chumps money in their pocket and not a dealers.
The latter. Remember any money that goes in the dealer's toke box cannot go back in the tray (unless the dealer is allowed to gamble there off shift.)
Quote: Buzzard' The fact that you can do this in all defensive split situations adds enough to your EV that it makes the game positive. " i VERY SERIOUSLY DOUBT THIS !
It will not make the game positive.
It will Decrease the house advantage by 0.14%-0.17% (6 or 8 Decks and Depending on game rules).
Quote: MrCasinoGamesIt will not make the game positive.
It will Decrease the house advantage by 0.14%-0.17%
I am pretty sure that there is an advantage play here. Where do you get those numbers from? Are you including plays where splitting hurts the main hand but helps the large bet?
Quote: rob45Most places I have been state that the max dealer bet is 10% of table max. $1000 max means that largest dealer bet is $100.
I have been to at least one place that set it up so that the aggregate cannot exceed 110% of max. In this case, with a $1000 max, the player's bet and dealer's bet combined cannot exceed $1100.
With this method, assuming a $10 minimum, a person could bet $10 for the player and $1090 for the dealer. (The player was still restricted to max of $1000, though.)
Funny you should mention your last example. I once had a woman who cruises with my company regularly bet $50 on the spot and $500 for the dealers, EVERY HAND. Each dealer leaves the ship with approximately $10k in savings after their 6 month contracts. When this girl shows up, they make $15k to $20k for that ONE CRUISE.
She was playing on a $50 to $2000 table so there was no issue with her betting (aggregate rule)
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI am pretty sure that there is an advantage play here. Where do you get those numbers from? Are you including plays where splitting hurts the main hand but helps the large bet?
Hi AxiomOfChoice,
Those numbers are from (Cindy Liu) MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS of my New Blackjack rule Stephen-Splits (for my game Common-Hand Blackjack).
Stephen-Splits is a new blackjack rule that replaces the traditional splitting rule.
Whereas traditional splitting is entirely optional, Stephen-Splits is a required action.
RULES
1. All other aspects of blackjack remain unchanged.
2. When dealt 4-4, 5-5, 9-9, or a 2-card 20, players cannot split. Player’s must either stand, hit, or double down (if allowed).
3. For all other pairs (2-2, 3-3, 6-6, 7-7, 8-8, A-A), the dealer will separate the two cards into 2 new hands.
The player’s initial wager will be moved and placed behind the first split card. The dealer will deal a second card to this hand, making it a 2-card hand that will be played as a new blackjack hand. Players must play this hand.
4. Players have the option of making a second wager, equal to or less than their original wager, on the second split hand.
5. Stephen-Split aces receive one card only.
6. Players may double down after a Stephen-Split, except with split aces.
Note: Players have the option of making a second wager, equal to or less than their original wager, on the second split hand.
Quote: MrCasinoGamesHi AxiomOfChoice,
Those numbers are from (Cindy Liu) MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS of my New Blackjack rule Stephen-Splits (for my game Common-Hand Blackjack).
Stephen-Splits is a new blackjack rule that replaces the traditional splitting rule.
Whereas traditional splitting is entirely optional, Stephen-Splits is a required action.
RULES
1. All other aspects of blackjack remain unchanged.
2. When dealt 4-4, 5-5, 9-9, or a 2-card 20, players cannot split. Player’s must either stand, hit, or double down (if allowed).
3. For all other pairs (2-2, 3-3, 6-6, 7-7, 8-8, A-A), the dealer will separate the two cards into 2 new hands.
The player’s initial wager will be moved and placed behind the first split card. The dealer will deal a second card to this hand, making it a 2-card hand that will be played as a new blackjack hand. Players must play this hand.
4. Players have the option of making a second wager, equal to or less than their original wager, on the second split hand.
5. Stephen-Split aces receive one card only.
6. Players may double down after a Stephen-Split, except with split aces.
Note: Players have the option of making a second wager, equal to or less than their original wager, on the second split hand.
What we are talking about is not quite the same as your game. It's stronger for the player. In particular:
1. The player will sometimes want to split 4s (according to basic strategy, when DAS is allowed. The big bet should follow along)
2. The player will always want to split 9-9. The big bet should follow along vs a 2-8 (9 is a favorite vs 2-8, and 2x9 is higher EV than 1x18). vs 9-A the big bet should treat it as a defensive split and not follow (9 is a smaller underdog vs 9-A than 18 is). Not being allowed to split 9's is extremely expensive.
On another note, your game sounds like fun! Is it in casinos anywhere? I would like to play.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceQuote: MrCasinoGamesHi AxiomOfChoice,
Those numbers are from (Cindy Liu) MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS of my New Blackjack rule Stephen-Splits (for my game Common-Hand Blackjack).
Stephen-Splits is a new blackjack rule that replaces the traditional splitting rule.
Whereas traditional splitting is entirely optional, Stephen-Splits is a required action.
RULES
1. All other aspects of blackjack remain unchanged.
2. When dealt 4-4, 5-5, 9-9, or a 2-card 20, players cannot split. Player’s must either stand, hit, or double down (if allowed).
3. For all other pairs (2-2, 3-3, 6-6, 7-7, 8-8, A-A), the dealer will separate the two cards into 2 new hands.
The player’s initial wager will be moved and placed behind the first split card. The dealer will deal a second card to this hand, making it a 2-card hand that will be played as a new blackjack hand. Players must play this hand.
4. Players have the option of making a second wager, equal to or less than their original wager, on the second split hand.
5. Stephen-Split aces receive one card only.
6. Players may double down after a Stephen-Split, except with split aces.
Note: Players have the option of making a second wager, equal to or less than their original wager, on the second split hand.
What we are talking about is not quite the same as your game. It's stronger for the player. In particular:
1. The player will sometimes want to split 4s (according to basic strategy, when DAS is allowed. The big bet should follow along)
2. The player will always want to split 9-9. The big bet should follow along vs a 2-8 (9 is a favorite vs 2-8, and 2x9 is higher EV than 1x18). vs 9-A the big bet should treat it as a defensive split and not follow (9 is a smaller underdog vs 9-A than 18 is). Not being allowed to split 9's is extremely expensive.
On another note, your game sounds like fun! Is it in casinos anywhere? I would like to play.
Hi AxiomOfChoice,
Also See link: Blackjack Splitting Strategy for the Back-Player.
P.S. My games Common-Hand Blackjack and Odds-Win Bonus Blackjack will be in on-line casinos some time this years (I will up-date it here when it go on-line).
And I'll continue to have that attitude even ten years from now when 11:10 is the norm.
Quote: MrCasinoGamesQuote: AxiomOfChoiceQuote: MrCasinoGamesHi AxiomOfChoice,
Those numbers are from (Cindy Liu) MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS of my New Blackjack rule Stephen-Splits (for my game Common-Hand Blackjack).
Stephen-Splits is a new blackjack rule that replaces the traditional splitting rule.
Whereas traditional splitting is entirely optional, Stephen-Splits is a required action.
RULES
1. All other aspects of blackjack remain unchanged.
2. When dealt 4-4, 5-5, 9-9, or a 2-card 20, players cannot split. Player’s must either stand, hit, or double down (if allowed).
3. For all other pairs (2-2, 3-3, 6-6, 7-7, 8-8, A-A), the dealer will separate the two cards into 2 new hands.
The player’s initial wager will be moved and placed behind the first split card. The dealer will deal a second card to this hand, making it a 2-card hand that will be played as a new blackjack hand. Players must play this hand.
4. Players have the option of making a second wager, equal to or less than their original wager, on the second split hand.
5. Stephen-Split aces receive one card only.
6. Players may double down after a Stephen-Split, except with split aces.
Note: Players have the option of making a second wager, equal to or less than their original wager, on the second split hand.
What we are talking about is not quite the same as your game. It's stronger for the player. In particular:
1. The player will sometimes want to split 4s (according to basic strategy, when DAS is allowed. The big bet should follow along)
2. The player will always want to split 9-9. The big bet should follow along vs a 2-8 (9 is a favorite vs 2-8, and 2x9 is higher EV than 1x18). vs 9-A the big bet should treat it as a defensive split and not follow (9 is a smaller underdog vs 9-A than 18 is). Not being allowed to split 9's is extremely expensive.
On another note, your game sounds like fun! Is it in casinos anywhere? I would like to play.
Hi AxiomOfChoice,
Also See link: Blackjack Splitting Strategy for the Back-Player.
P.S. My games Common-Hand Blackjack and Odds-Win Bonus Blackjack will be in on-line casinos some time this years (I will up-date it here when it go on-line).
Oh, then, I guess it is not enough to overcome the house edge in most games. I thought it was more powerful than 0.2%. Sorry, my mistake.
Also my statement about 9,9v7 was obviously wrong (it goes against basic strategy). I was confused and reading the wrong column in appendix 5.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceIt's +EV because I can spit without putting out extra money. So I get free defensive splits.
Eg, suppose you have 88 vs a 10. This is a horrible situation. Stand or hit, and your ev is about -$50. Now, you can also split. When you split, each 8 v 10 is a bad situation -- you are losing badly. But 2 of those is still better than one 16 v 10, so you are better of splitting. But if you can split for free and just play one 8 v 10, you are basically throwing out an 8 (which is the worst card in the deck for you) and getting a new card for free.
The fact that you can do this in all defensive split situations adds enough to your EV that it makes the game positive. This is a relatively well-known advantage play in places that allow back-betting (I've heard that it is, or at least used to be, commonly allowed in Europe) The play is, I sit there and bet the minimum while you back-bet the maximum. I play my hand not to maximize my EV, but to maximize our combined EV (which is pretty much the same as maximizing your EV, since my bet is insignificant compared to yours). So, I will make splits that I would not normally make, that hurt my hand but help yours (you don't come along for the split). That, combined with you not coming along on basic strategy defensive splits (but coming along on offensive ones!), confers an advantage off-the-top (no counting necessary)
AoC,
If you could tell me more about back-betting. Once I was playing at an Indian casino and a lady back-bet on my hand. I completely made the decisions and she had no say-so. Is this always the way it is? Do any casinos in Vegas allow back-betting? I have never seen this in Vegas. If I were to split a pair can the back-bettor always make the decision not to split and play two hands, thereby only playing the first split-card-hand? And if you back-bet, you would only want to ride on an APs hand I would think. Also, if a house dosen't allow mid-deck entry then this would apply to back-betting too I would think.
Quote: GreasyjohnAoC,
If you could tell me more about back-betting. Once I was playing at an Indian casino and a lady back-bet on my hand. I completely made the decisions and she had no say-so. Is this always the way it is? Do any casinos in Vegas allow back-betting? I have never seen this in Vegas. If I were to split a pair can the back-bettor always make the decision not to split and play two hands, thereby only playing the first split-card-hand? And if you back-bet, you would only want to ride on an APs hand I would think. Also, if a house dosen't allow mid-deck entry then this would apply to back-betting too I would think.
Note that I (as pointed out by others) I was wrong in the post that you quoted. There is no advantage off the top in most games (although it would get a good game very, very close to break-even, which brings up other possibilities for the game)
I don't know about Vegas casinos allowing back-betting. I've never seen it, but I do remember that there was a story discussed here a few months ago about some mutual fund manager or something winning a lot from some MGM casino (Bellagio?) where, in addition to betting on his own hands, he was allowed to back-bet on the hands of others.
I'd assume that he was not required to follow along on splits, although nothing like that was mentioned in the article. I seriously doubt that there was any sort of advantage play going on (although there may have been -- he may also have just gotten lucky, as positive-progression bettors will do once in a while). A casino could still limit exposure by limiting back-bets to be no bigger than the size of the main bet.
Quote: rob45Most places I have been state that the max dealer bet is 10% of table max. $1000 max means that largest dealer bet is $100.
It's either 10% or 20% at my casino, but for me, most tips are in white, pink, or red chips, with the very rare green chip. People usually bet the leftovers from a blackjack or big win for the dealers, and tip bets rarely exceed $5.
We appreciate all tips, mostly because we know they add up over time. That said, a $25 max for dealer bets is the most insane thing I've ever heard. (Of course, so is the idea that a player could bet $1,090 for the dealer.)
As you say, if you're at a casino where everyone knows how to play their own hands, you are technically better to play behind than play your own box; and if you and your friend go together then playing behind each other (assuming you both collude) is a good idea.
Sometimes I find it annoying that bad players go behind you and then complain when you (correctly) take a card, such as 12 vs 2.
Interestingly in the UK, except at some craps tables, you cannot really bet for the dealers.
Players in on one hand would also back bet other hands. A real madhouse. Can't imagine dealing it.
I think each table also had it's own dedicated floor person to referee the partnership meetings called whenever someone objected to the managing general partner in the front seat hitting that 12 against that 3.
Quote: rhodyBobThere was a game I saw recently in Niagara Falls, Ontario, some kind of "triple play" arrangement on the felt where there were three circles in front of each seat. The person sitting in the seat was the front line bettor, and people standing behind him each had a circle of their own. Quite a crowded situation, and there were other side options, I think, as well. I didn't play. Too busy, dealt from a CSM, table limit too high.
Players in on one hand would also back bet other hands. A real madhouse. Can't imagine dealing it.
I think each table also had it's own dedicated floor person to referee the partnership meetings called whenever someone objected to the managing general partner in the front seat hitting that 12 against that 3.
A Blackjack layout for Holland Casino.
Absolutely: I forgot to mention that most Netherlands casinos have multiple spots (they're all one chain run by the government). I sometimes stop in Ostende (Belgium) after the ferry crossing and they usually have multiple players.Quote: MrCasinoGames...Holland...
Quote: rhodyBobThere was a game I saw recently in Niagara Falls, Ontario, some kind of "triple play" arrangement on the felt where there were three circles in front of each seat. The person sitting in the seat was the front line bettor, and people standing behind him each had a circle of their own. Quite a crowded situation, and there were other side options, I think, as well. I didn't play. Too busy, dealt from a CSM, table limit too high.
Players in on one hand would also back bet other hands. A real madhouse. Can't imagine dealing it.
I think each table also had it's own dedicated floor person to referee the partnership meetings called whenever someone objected to the managing general partner in the front seat hitting that 12 against that 3.
That same type of layout and action was on virtually all table games in London. Seemed common there. House Money didn't have it on the layout, so others just piled on behind regardless.
I thought back betting started in AC when demand was so high and the casinos had too few tables and dealers. I never knew it was incorporated into the actual layout at some casinos.Quote: beachbumbabsThat same type of layout and action was on virtually all table games in London. Seemed common there. House Money didn't have it on the layout, so others just piled on behind regardless.
Shows how supply and demand for gambling games is ever changing.
Tip pooling evens out everyone's pay packet, this smoothing effect carries the dead weight and detracts from the truly top notch but that is a minor effect Collusion is not the primary worry when it comes to tips, its the actual dealing that the casino wants to watch.Quote: BleedingChipsSlowlyDoes pooling the tips take the teeth out of the dealer collusion problem as far as the casinos are concerned?
Procedures, not outcomes necessarily, just procedures.
In the UK yes - it's quite normal to see (say) a few players at a table and one of them play behind another.Quote: endermikeCan a player back bet even if there is an open seat at the table?
